Sincock Head-scratcher

[greyroamer]

Assuming that they didn't have gender re-assignment in Cornwall in the 1870's I have come across an interesting enigma.

We begin with Thomas Sincock, bap. Crowan 6-Dec-1824 (OPC) son of William Sincock, Blacksmith and his wife, Catherine. This is the first challenge, as the only marriage I can find which fits is William Sincock and CHRISTIAN Oats, Crowan 27-Aug-1820. The "Catherine" in the baptism record appears to be a slip of the pen, as the 1841 census shows parents as William and Christian and William and Christian appear in the 1851 & 1861 censuses and all Thomas' siblings cite "William & Christian", so no real problem there.

Thomas, a blacksmith, married Jane Whitta in Menheniot in 1847 and they had 4 children 1849-1855 in St Agnes [Peterville]. Jane died aged 36 in Dec-1859 in Bodriggy and then in 1860, Thomas married Mary Ann Treloar, daughter of James Treloar and Elizabeth Scholar of Breage. Thomas and Mary Ann had several children 1857-1866 and that is where the enigma surfaces. . .

The 1861 census shows  

Thomas     35    Blacksmith  Crowan

Mary Ann    33    Wife        Breage

William        12    Son  . . . And on the next page (don't you just hate that?)

James        9       Son

Thomas    8

Mary        5

Ann        3   . . .     All OK so far

The 1871 census shows

Thomas     42  Blacksmith    Crowan (amazing, only aged 7 years in a decade, wish I could do that)

Mary Ann   41  Wife            Breage

Thomas    18

Annie        13

Jane        7 (1864 Note)    Phillack

Joseph    4            This corresponds (within reason) with the 1861 census above.

BUT -- the 1881 census contains the anomaly

Thomas    52

Mary Ann    52

John        17 (1864 Note) Hayle

Joseph    14

Edwin    9

. . . and thereby hangs a tale. I have examined the original, hand written pages of the 1871 and 1881 censuses and can confirm 1871 "Jane Dau." and 1881 "John, Son." which leaves me scratching my head. Unfortunately by the time of the 1891 census John/Jane had left home and I can find no reference to Jane in the 1891 census.

There is a birth registration for "John Sincock, 1Q 1864, Redruth" and an appearance in the 1891 and 1901 censuses of John Sincock, b. 1864 in Hayle, Blacksmith which seems too co-incidental not to be the son of Thomas. I can find no birth registration for Jane.

So what's with Jane? Is it possible that the person recording the details of the 1871 census recorded a 7 year old boy, John as a 7 year old girl, Jane. I know there are often inconsistencies in census records, but although this one seems a bit of a stretch, I can think of no other answer.

For Pete's sake, don't anybody spend any time on this, I merely raise it as a conversation piece.

Mike

                                    

[Cornish Terrier]

Hi Mike,
First thing to deal with is the mother of Thomas. Have you tried to find a baptism for her? If not then my suspicion is that you 'might' find it interesting.

The issue is that the names Catherine and Christian were often interchanged which means that you could find her recorded in varying documents as Catherine, Christian, Katherine, Christiana or Kitty with variant spellings of some of those possible as well. I have seen marriages where the bride might be Catherine but signs as Christian and vice versa so you do need to keep an open mind.

As for 'daughter' Jane - I suspect this might be just another aberration on the part of the census taker on the day. It could have been a pronunciation problem but certainly not the first time I have seen errors such as this.

The list of children for Thomas Sincock as recorded in the GRO Index is as follows - I have noted only the forenames and the maiden name of the mother for the time being and left the reference number and district of birth out.

1849 William - mother WHITTA
1851 James - mother WHITTA
1853 Thomas Henry - mother WHITTA
1855 Mary Whitta - mother WHITTA
1857 Annie - mother WHITTO

1861 Johnson - mother TRELOAR
1862 Joseph - mother TRELOAR
1864 John - mother TRELOAR
1866 Joseph - mother TRELOAR
1868 Elizabeth - mother TRELOUR
1871 Edwin - mother TRELOAR

There may have been another Sincock/Treloar marriage but this certainly looks likely to be all the same family. It would appear that Johnson and the first Joseph as well as Elizabeth may not have survived.

If you have found son John (1864) in later records but no further sign of 'Jane' I would suggest it is almost certainly an error on the part of the census taker.

CT